Study links drug enforcement to more violence

phr

Bluelighter
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
36,649
Location
St. Charles, IL
Study links drug enforcement to more violence
Martha Mendoza
The AP
4.27.10



MEXICO CITY — The surge of gunbattles, beheadings and kidnappings that has accompanied Mexico's war on drug cartels is an entirely predictable escalation in violence based on decades of scientific literature, a new study contends.

A systematic review published Tuesday of more than 300 international studies dating back 20 years found that when police crack down on drug users and dealers, the result is almost always an increase in violence, say researchers at the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy, a nonprofit group based in Britain and Canada.

When communities get tough on drug crime, that drives up the black market profits, prompting fierce battles to control the lucrative trade, their study says. And when powerful and successful drug bosses are taken out, it's all too common for more brutal and less sophisticated criminals to step in.

"Law enforcement is the biggest single expenditure on drugs, yet has rarely been evaluated. This work indicates an urgent need to shift resources from counterproductive law enforcement to a health-based public health approach," said Gerry Stimson, executive director of the International Harm Reduction Association which is hosting a conference this week in Liverpool, England, where the study was released.

As happened with Mexico's all-out drug crackdown launched when President Felipe Calderon took office a little over three years ago, murders shot up during the U.S. prohibition on liquor in the 1920s and during Colombia's crackdown on its drug gangs in the 1990s.

In 87 percent of the studies reviewed, intensifying drug law enforcement resulted in increased rates of drug market violence. Some of the studies included in the report said violence increases because power vacuums are created when police kill or arrest top drug traffickers. None showed a significant decrease in violence.

U.S. Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske, asked about the findings, said the U.S. government is shifting its emphasis toward prevention and treatment of drug abuse, but he said the prohibition on drugs must remain and enforcement must continue.

"I don't know of any reason that legalizing something that essentially is bad for you would make it better, from a fiscal standpoint or a public health standpoint or a public safety standpoint," he said.

The former drug czar, John Walters, said the researchers gravely misinterpret drug violence. He said spikes of attacks and killings after law enforcement crackdowns are almost entirely between criminals, and therefore may, in a horrible, paradoxical way, reflect success.

"They're shooting each other, and the reason they're doing that is because they're getting weaker," he said.

Walters warned against blaming law enforcement.

"The cause of the violence is not the law. The cause of the violence is the criminals and the viciousness in which criminal activity is carried out," he said.

Calderon recognized when he became Mexico's president in December 2006 that smashing drug gangs was going to be costly.

"We are, at the end of the day, putting our lives on the line in this battle," he told The Associated Press soon after taking office.

Since then, Mexico has sent more than 45,000 soldiers into battle with cartels and seen an unprecedented wave of drug violence that has killed more than 22,700 people, most of them victims of disputes between rival gangs. But the dead also include police, soldiers, politicians and journalists as well as innocent civilians caught in shootouts.

As the toll rises, Calderon is coming under increasing criticism for his strategy. But a core constituency still applauds him.

"This government made a difficult but courageous decision to take on the cartels," said Luis de la Barreda, director of the Citizens' Institute for Crime Studies, an independent advocate for better security and accountability in law enforcement.

U.S. authorities have repeatedly emphasized their support for Mexico's drug interdiction efforts.

David Danelo, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia, warned that authorities must guarantee the rule of law.

"If the police do not rule the streets, others will," he said.

Link!
 
"The cause of the violence is not the law."

Yeah, that's why we see liquor store owners waging nightly gunfights huh 8)

Fuck you John Walters.

The cronies who run the drug war will never concede even the hint of failure, no matter what studies are done and how solid the findings are. They have their eye on the prize, and that prize is their annual budget. To means to maintain and grow that budget justify outright lying, dubiously calculated statistics (some statisticians wrote a great book about how drug war figures are manipulated: "Lies, Damned Lies, and Drug War Statistics"), and a well-lubricated propaganda machine. Just another example of big government turning into a self-serving cesspool of self-righteous blowhards. People get angry about welfare recipients abusing the system, but the true criminals in that regard are the likes of John Walters, Gil Kerlikowske, and Barry McCaffrey.
 
Last edited:
SUCCESS!
"The former drug czar, John Walters, said the researchers gravely misinterpret drug violence. He said spikes of attacks and killings after law enforcement crackdowns are almost entirely between criminals, and therefore may, in a horrible, paradoxical way, reflect success."

Fuck you John Walters.

...........................................REDDIT ALIEN I SEE YOU!
 
Last edited:
I probably sound like a broken record. This is a story of 2 police chiefs, who served in that capacity during the same time period. The first was Daryl Gates, former police chief of Los Angeles in the 80s. During his time at the helm, the city of LA's police departement was well renouned for their brutality and racism, culminating in the beating of a man named Rodney King which was captured on film. The significance of what transpired, the outrage felt among many of the cities population was that finally their frustration, the repression, and harrasment that they were subject too regularly was finally captured on film. Daryl Gates was quoted as saying that drug users are traitors who deserve capital punishment. The final irony is that, if I'm not mistaken, his son was brought up on drug possession charges. Daryl Gates, died recently. His legacy includes a city the degenerated into rioting, a city that was one of the least safe, a drug war in which their were countless tragedies. My condolences to his family, he was doing what he thought was right, I'm sure, but LA is a textbook example of what happens when you make fighting drug use and drug users a major priority.

Serving during the same period of time in another California major city (the third largest) is Joseph D McNamara, PH.D. He started off as a cop in NYC and served as a cop for 35 years. He became police chief of Kansas City and then of San Jose, my home town from 1977-1991. What is cool about this guy is that he was an outspoken critic against drug prohibition when most people were too scared to come out and speak their minds. He organized his departments resources, ever cognizant that he had to uphold the law, whether he agreed to it or not, but he had latitude regarding how he alocated his departements resources and fighting the war on drugs, drug users in particular was near the bottom. How did he keep his job, well according to LEAP's (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) website, the Hover Institute's, and the FBI's very own crime index data base that,
...In 1976 McNamara was appointed police chief for the city of San Jose, where he remained until his retirement in 1991. During his tenure, San Jose (the third-largest city in California and the eleventh largest in the United States) became the safest city in the country, despite having the fewest police per capita.

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php?name=Speakers&bio=199

This is from LEAP's websites. In the 80s, in CA, a real life study had already been done. Tonight he was on the History Channels hooked series. I have one of his discources at a symposium in 1995, along with Kurt Schmoke, former mayor of Baltimore, somewhere on BL.

The question is- the emirical evidence is there, the war on drugs is worse than drug use itself and it leaves casualties in China, Mexico, Colombia, the latter 2 seing that laws for simple possession are counterproductive. But why not in the US, land of the free and a fairly well educated populace. I start to think of Hitler and, "the larger the lie the more people will believe it."
 
"I don't know of any reason that legalizing something that essentially is bad for you would make it better, from a fiscal standpoint or a public health standpoint or a public safety standpoint," he said.

What about alcohol and prohibition?
Didn't legalizing it stop the violence?

Is he assuming that legalization would lead to an increase in usage? Big assumption, not necessarily true.

Many people would argue that TV is "essentially bad for you".
Cigarettes and alcohol and sugar are as well.

Who is he to decide what I can put in my body, even if it is "essentially bad for me"?!
(Oh, he's the drug lord of the US. :(
Well then, why do we stand for such a person to make such a decision?)
 
oh the stupidity....

John Walters, it disgusts me that someone who endorses gun deaths as success be in charge of improving public health (by theoretically reducing drug use)

Yeah as you stick to the drug war story, it becomes clear there is no sense in drug laws. There just isn't. I try to think about what factors result in this twisted reality rather than accept their bs line its for the children.

It is good though that empirical, irrefutable studies are being published. Someday, logic will prevail...someday...
 
OCPIt is good though that empirical, irrefutable studies are being published. Someday, logic will prevail...someday...
I agree with you completely, these published studies establishing causal relationship between drugs prohibition and violence.

In my opininion what is, even if one ignores prohibition of alcohol and Chicago in the 20s, with respect to the drug war both approaches were tried in 2 major cities of the same state.

Anyone that listens to NWA from the late 80s or remembers the Rodney King riots, ect... can see how the militant war approach worked out.

The opposite approach, making fighting violent crimes and property crime a priority over prosecuting the drug law resulted in San Jose, I repeat,

San Jose (the third-largest city in California and the eleventh largest in the United States) became the safest city in the country, despite having the fewest police per capita.

These statistics are from the FBI. These are real world results. The problem was, the experiment wasn't continued. These are real world results- not drug propaganda scare tactics. But there are powerful interests and alot of money at stake so the truth is continually distorted and new bogeymans are sensationalized to throw away our hard earned money and kill so the machine doesn't starve.
 
drug enforcement requires violence

Violence once begets more violence.

Okay, so it looks like regardless of law, ultimately it is more important to have a competent executive. Perhaps there needs to be more efforts by drug reforms to get legit sheriffs and DAs in office than work on changing laws as much. One tons of sheriffs and prosecutors are speaking out, thats taking away the main opposition to reform.
 
Top